What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?
You know that prejudice is defined as something a minority says is prejedice? Well it's similar to that.
Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:42 PM
What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?
Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:56 PM
Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:58 PM
What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?
You know that prejudice is defined as something a minority says is prejedice? Well it's similar to that.
Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:28 AM
I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?
This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)No you are wrong. Inferences are not scientific, they are merely opinionated claims.
Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.If I had a million people infer that the sky was green would that make it green?
You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis.
Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:19 AM
I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )
The next responses are to a post earlier in the thread that I think were by gilbo. I typed these in word and lost the original attribution, so if these were another's words I apologise to them and gilbo for misattribution.
This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)
1.Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.
As it turns out the sky is apparently not green. We infer it to be blue (much, but not all of the time) based upon a variety of evidence, subsequently validated.
2. You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.
Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:38 AM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:43 AM
I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a mistunderstandings on your part.I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )
What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?
Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:46 AM
I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )
The next responses are to a post earlier in the thread that I think were by gilbo. I typed these in word and lost the original attribution, so if these were another's words I apologise to them and gilbo for misattribution.
This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)
Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.
As it turns out the sky is apparently not green. We infer it to be blue (much, but not all of the time) based upon a variety of evidence, subsequently validated.
Now much of what we ‘know’ is ‘known’ by inference. It is telling that the only conclusions drawn from inference that creationists seem to object to are those conclusions that disagree with your dogma. Why is that?
You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.
Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:59 AM
Re post 27... You will be enlightened.
Posted 16 March 2012 - 02:41 PM
Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:54 AM
He was most assuredly asked for his age in signing up to the forum, or are you asserting that that requirement is no longer mandatory, or was not so at the time he enrolled. Perhaps you should also check your facts before making false accusations.I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age,
Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:07 AM
He was most assuredly asked for his age in signing up to the forum, or are you asserting that that requirement is no longer mandatory, or was not so at the time he enrolled. Perhaps you should also check your facts before making false accusations.
In a later post you recommend I refer to your post #24. I have done so and consider it a good example of equivocation. Since that is outlawed on this forum I shall make no further comment in that regard except to commend you on a truly elegant twisting of meaning done with skill and elegance. I was impressed.
Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:09 PM
Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:52 PM
Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:42 PM
Otherwise I can claim I can fly to the moon with my magical gumboots.
Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:44 PM
AND, if you’ll notice, neither my AGE, nor my BIRTHDAY appear on my posts.
Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:25 AM
. You would think it's obvious by now that if you haven't found intermediate species by now, it's unlikely to happen.
Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:12 AM
Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:31 AM
In post #32 Tangle said this
“Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat (sic) response.”
In response to this (post #39) Upsalla Dragby asks
“What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?”
And in the next post (post #40) Gilbo asks
“Yeah a bit hard to do when you claim to be 21..... Why lie on your profile?
These prompted me to post this (post # 44 )
“I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )”
Ron, you then posted this:
“I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a misunderstandings on your part.”
There is no misunderstanding Ron. As I make clear in my post #44 we are required to specify our age when signing up to the forum. So Tangle was asked for his age and I was making no false accusation.
At no time was I addressing whatever the issue was about New Age Atheist, or whatever the term was. As should be very clear from my post (44) my concern was over the issue of being asked ones age. I have misrepresented nothing and misunderstood nothing relative to the point of the issue of being asked ones age.
It might have been more appropriate for me to raise this in the sub-forum about forum management. And I indicated that uncertainty by opening post #44 with the comment that my observations were off topic for the thread. None of you told me to do so.
While I can understand that, focused as you were on the issue of Tangle's other behavior, you might think my observations revolved around the same centre. They didn’t and they don’t.
I shall address the points raised by some of you about equivocation in another post.
Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:33 AM
Hate to say it mate but your age is showing to me down at the bottom of the column.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users